The Experts below are selected from a list of 6 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

S.l. Gandhi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Modeling of tower Relief dynamics: Part 2
    1993
    Co-Authors: J.r. Cassata, S. Dasgupta, S.l. Gandhi
    Abstract:

    Dynamic simulations of individual towers or systems of distillations columns overcome limitations of steady-state models by rigorously determining dynamic responses. These will lead to a realistic quantification of Relief header and flare system load and identify the design-setting Relief scenario. Determination of distillation tower Relief loads based on steady-state simulations or recognized methods of approximation can lead to over designing Relief systems by large margins. This can result in unnecessary capital expenditure for Relief Headers and flare systems that can significantly alter the economics of a proposed project. Such overly conservative requirements may even cause potentially attractive projects to be unnecessarily canceled. In addition, approximate methods or analyses based on steady-state simulations sometimes do not identify the design-setting Relief mode. Part 1 introduced the PRV and tower dynamic models. Different strategies were shown that can simplify these models. These strategies include tower segmentation, tray lumping and component lumping. Two case studies illustrate the advantages of dynamic models. The two studies are a depentanizer tower Relief study and a delthanizer tower Relief study.

J.r. Cassata - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Modeling of tower Relief dynamics: Part 2
    1993
    Co-Authors: J.r. Cassata, S. Dasgupta, S.l. Gandhi
    Abstract:

    Dynamic simulations of individual towers or systems of distillations columns overcome limitations of steady-state models by rigorously determining dynamic responses. These will lead to a realistic quantification of Relief header and flare system load and identify the design-setting Relief scenario. Determination of distillation tower Relief loads based on steady-state simulations or recognized methods of approximation can lead to over designing Relief systems by large margins. This can result in unnecessary capital expenditure for Relief Headers and flare systems that can significantly alter the economics of a proposed project. Such overly conservative requirements may even cause potentially attractive projects to be unnecessarily canceled. In addition, approximate methods or analyses based on steady-state simulations sometimes do not identify the design-setting Relief mode. Part 1 introduced the PRV and tower dynamic models. Different strategies were shown that can simplify these models. These strategies include tower segmentation, tray lumping and component lumping. Two case studies illustrate the advantages of dynamic models. The two studies are a depentanizer tower Relief study and a delthanizer tower Relief study.

S. Dasgupta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Modeling of tower Relief dynamics: Part 2
    1993
    Co-Authors: J.r. Cassata, S. Dasgupta, S.l. Gandhi
    Abstract:

    Dynamic simulations of individual towers or systems of distillations columns overcome limitations of steady-state models by rigorously determining dynamic responses. These will lead to a realistic quantification of Relief header and flare system load and identify the design-setting Relief scenario. Determination of distillation tower Relief loads based on steady-state simulations or recognized methods of approximation can lead to over designing Relief systems by large margins. This can result in unnecessary capital expenditure for Relief Headers and flare systems that can significantly alter the economics of a proposed project. Such overly conservative requirements may even cause potentially attractive projects to be unnecessarily canceled. In addition, approximate methods or analyses based on steady-state simulations sometimes do not identify the design-setting Relief mode. Part 1 introduced the PRV and tower dynamic models. Different strategies were shown that can simplify these models. These strategies include tower segmentation, tray lumping and component lumping. Two case studies illustrate the advantages of dynamic models. The two studies are a depentanizer tower Relief study and a delthanizer tower Relief study.

Alireza Bahadori - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Blow-Down and Flare Systems
    Natural Gas Processing, 2014
    Co-Authors: Alireza Bahadori
    Abstract:

    In designing safeguarding systems for process plants, facilities should be provided for handling, directing, and ultimately disposing of voluntary and involuntary gases and liquids. Several options available are to the process design engineer as to the selection of disposal systems. Once a specific disposal system is selected, detail design is undertaken. This chapter covers process design and evaluation and selection of Relief systems for natural gas processing plants. It includes network and related ancillary installations that are to handle and direct fluids discharged as a result of overpressure, and/or operational requirements of a safe disposal system. This chapter is primarily concerned with selection of disposal system, sizing of Relief Headers, sizing of flare systems, and burning pits.